is simmering beneath the surface. >> rose: we conclude this evening with matt damon and john krakinski, two of the actors in gus van sant's new movie, "promised land". >> the biggest conversation matt and i can have is it starts conversation, beyond the issue of grabbing in the vernacular right now, to us it is the decision of communities gathering together and realizing that they have a voice and a responsibility to sort of unite and engage in these issues that are happening each day and deciding for themselves whether they want it. >> i forgot what it was like to start from, you know, the open laptop and that was just really fun, i just, my wife said to me in the middle of the whole thing, she says no matter what happens if you never make this movie, i haven't seen you this happy, at least remember how much fun it is to write. >> rose: a look at the economy and a look at the movies when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin tonight with an assessment of the u.s. and global economy, all eyes remain on efforts to avoid the fiscal cliff deadline on january 1st, when automatic spending cuts and tax increases are set to take hold. there is growing optimism on capitol hill that a deal could come soon, yesterday president obama said he would be willing to lower his revenue goal and tax increases at 400,000 instead of 250,000 per household. >> john boehner said he developed a backup plan to avert year-end tax increases if the

negotiations with president obama stalls, this occurs in the backdrop of an economic that is bettering on housing and employment data, the global economy continues fragile with the european debt crisis and china i in in. >> rogoff is a professor of public policy and economics at harvard, he is a coauthor of the best selling book, this time is different, eight centuries of financial folly, many consider it to be the authoritative text on the impact of financial crisis around the world. i am pleased to have ken rogoff back on this program. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: let me start big, if i may. so i mean, how do you see as we enter a new year the global economy? >> well, to state the obvious, everybody is growing more slowly than they would like to, if at all. europe is basically flat, the u.s. is improving, but it is not exactly galloping and, you know, we are entering probably a weak quarter where people are hoping

it will be stronger over the course of the year, china is slowing some and in general all of the emerging markets are slower than they were most of them india has slowed dramatically, brazil is slow, so yes, indeed it is a fragile situation, when the u.s. is one of the bright spots, you know, eking out make two percent growth, one percent growth this quarter you know things aren't very good. >> rose: do you expect to see, speaking of the united states, growth rate getting back close to four percent? >> well, you know, it is in the realm of possibility, but i think the trend growth rate, you know, is going to be more on the order of two and a half and i mean some days some quarters it will be worse than that, some quarters it will be better than that. there are many private forecasters calling for it to be three percent by years end, i think we are doing pretty well if that happens. >> rose: if we get to three that is good? >> yeah. i think i would be pretty happy with getting to three, it is not going to solve our unemployment

problems, any time soon, we really need 45 percent growth for a sustained period to really seem out of this, but it stuz, steam out of this, but it gives modest improvement. >> were you pleased to see the fed focus on unemployment and jobs? >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, i think the fed is in this difficult situation where it clearly needs to express its message more forcefully, because it is not just about, you know, how much quantitative easing it does, but about the message behind it, so i certainly have welcomed their change towards focusing on final output, on employment and inflation, i would have liked to see a little bit looser inflation target, because i think realistically they need to get inflation expectations up to help drive investment, but this is definitely a welcome change. i think we are still in an

evolution, i think there is more to come. >> rose: does this economy need a stimulus of some kind? >> well,. >> rose: whether from the fed or from the congress? >> i don't think we can live on stimulus forever. certainly withdrawing too rapid a rate in such a fragile economy makes no sense and the plan of sort of gradually tightening policy over a long period is the right one, but in the -- but the real problem is just that our system is so paralyzed and isn't able to to be creative, the private sector is creative but the government is just paralyzed the tax system needs to be reformed, we need to have areas where we spend money like infrastructure and improving education. there are other areas where i think we need to rein in a bit on entitlements and everyone wants to keep what we have and in this static situation and it is a changing world and it is not a healthy one. >> rose: does it define

negotiating tactic for the president to say i agree on you on entitlements and this is what i will do and therefore you should agree on revenue and this is what you should do? >> i see the president's strategy, the long-term advantage as really let's raise taxes on the wealthy, then let's do it again, then let's do it again and finally we can go to people and say you know what? this isn't enough we need to cut entitlements, we need to raise taxes on the middle class. we have to have the private sector do some things that the government sector is doing now. we have to have changes. but as long as there are this politically low hanging fruit, it is really hard to move ahead more broadly, and the republicans on the other hand, you know, are trying to say, well, we really have got to look at the longer term here, you have got to be kidding that you are not going to cut entitle.s, the math just doesn't add up. >> rose: is the debt the problem that there is some disagreement? your colleague paul krugman in writing in the column, every other column in "the new york times" says it is not about the debt, it is not

about the debt. is it about the debt? >> well, of course it is about the debt, i mean we have record public debt, private debt, internationally, and it is not the only thing, i mean clearly we want to leave our children a good infrastructure. we want to leave them improving technology, a good education system, all of the things the earlier generations left us, but on the other hand, if you have a very large debt it creates all kinds of inner generational tensions, distribution natural tensions and we are at a level .. where historically it has been problematic and i think it makes sense to gradually rein it in, i do not advocate anything radical, my coauthor, carmen reinhardt similarly does not advocate anything radical, radical meaning,. >> rose: by radical you mean some austerity, draconian

austerity. >> draconian, in fact i would welcome more infrastructure spending if it were well spent because certainly the united states needs that, although i would like to see more private funding of infrastructure and have the private sector gradually take over some of the things on which the government has held a monopoly. >> rose: what is the appropriate percentage of gdp and debt? >> well, appropriate, i mean, we are at a level -- >> rose: what -- >> how about zero? >> rose: acceptable, what can we live with and what is manageable and sustainable and not an impediment to growth? how is that? >> no one knows for sure, but historically, when you start getting debt levels up at 90 percent and 100 percent of income, you are in a very rarefied air, and those debt

levels, historically, have been associated with lower growth, not falling off a cliff, not greece, but lower growth on a sustained beats, you are talking about when you get up debt there, it can hold back your growth for decades there are other things you can do to make up for it, you can have innovation and other improvements but it is definitely problematic. you know, you start getting up at levels twice where we are, then i think it gets really dangerous, nobody knows where inbetween you really fall off a cliff. i thigh it is hyperbole to say that the united states is going to become greece but it is not hyperbole to compare us to japan and wonder if we get stuck in this slow growth quagmire. europe might be even more in danger of that. >> rose: okay. let's stop right there. do you think that we are at risk of getting stuck in the slow growth quagmire that japan got stuck in, the united states economy? >> well, i would say we are in a mild version of it now, and, you know, we need to do improvements

and reforms. i don't think spending money is the solution. there are smart ways to spend it for sure, but i don't buy this idea that bigger keynesian stimulus will solve our problems, these fundamental problems with demographics, with slowing innovation, and other things we are experiencing. i think we need more fundamental reform and my colleagues like paul krugman will say, you know, i hear that all the time but i really want to see -- i want to see stimulus now, and i think we have been doing this for a long time, we are doing it at seven percent of gdp at the moment, and i think it is sensible to try to slowly rein it in. >> rose: so what should be the percentage of spending to gdp? >> okay. well, clearly it depends, are you paying for education? are you paying for healthcare? you can't compare the united states and europe because we privately buy a lot of things that they do

publicly, you know, overtime, this may sound very theoretical but it is very important, overtime, the things the government provides, very service intensive and always going to keep getting more expensive and i think we need to think about bringing the private sector in, into our infrastructure, maybe more into education, other areas where it brings in money, brings in innovation. i don't think we can live in a world where the government does everything that it does today. we need regulation, you can't just turn over things to the private sector, but if we don't do that, then the costs are just going to rise inex-orively you can be a conservative and say i don't want a large government but it is going to grow anyway, you need to decide what the government has to provide besides what it tries to regulate. we are actually on a pretty healthy side of that, compared to a place like france, where government spending is more than half of gdp. but it is going to keep creeping

up and i think we need to be creative and alert to that. >> rose: i want to talk about what is going on in washington now between the president and the speaker, but if we -- if they fail completely and we go over this fiscal cliff what are the repercussions? you know, i mean, there is really a fair chance that they don't come to an agreement for whatever reason the house republicans won't support it and we go into 2013. i don't think that, per say, would be the end of the world because i think there would be a cry and it would get rein reined in after a few weeks and settle on this .. i would view this as a skirmish in a bigger war where you are growing entitlements, government services are getting more expensive. people are going to pay more and get less, and i think it is a very, very difficult tension of how to deal with that and this is just a first stage of that or

one of many stages. so i don't think they are going to settle everything. i do hope they come to an agreement. i certainly hope we don't see another debt ceiling fiasco having the u.s. default on its debt, even technically would be pretty ugly. >> rose: what would be a reasonable agreement in your eyes? >> well, i mean, almost any agreement would be better than nothing at the moment. >> rose: right. >> i am being somewhat facetious. >> rose: let's assume -- >> i would like to see some bigger problem tackled. first of all if everyone admits you can't have an absolute. the republicans say, okay, maybe taxes do have to go up some time, the president says, maybe it into.s do have to get cut. i think that is very important. i clearly -- there are areas of our tax system which are egregious in terms of their inequality implications, things like carried interest, but of course, you know, i would like

to see a bigger plan. i would like to see reform, that seems to be just a dream at the moment. >> rose: what would be reasonable for the president to agree to? if, in fact, you know, the rates are back to clinton levels and it applies to people who make in a household more than 400,000? >> well, i think he pretty clearly has to get something significant here, he campaigned on it the, he is held fast, if he gives in on this completely what happens to the next disagreement, you know, you just can't fold your cards. >> rose: that is on the rate side. what should he get on the entitlement spending cuts? >> well, i think there are obvious things like raising the age of social security. >> rose: that's good. >> having people with very high incomes, you know, not receive just the same benefits from medicare and social security. there are plenty of adjustments that could be made for the relatively small amount also we y are talking about in the larger scheme of things here,

you know, looking at the ten and 20 year horizon they are talking about. >> rose: when you look at this financial crisis that we saw in 2008, and you look at historical data that you so brilliantly covered, when do we come it of this and how does this fit in terms of the data that you saw from previous crisis? >> well, it has been very on track to the average of post car crises zero down to the fact that housing is picking up again. you know, typically after five or six years, housing prices stabilize and start to rise, but it takes a long time for employment to come back fully. this is something where, you know, it could certainly take another five or six years to feel normal, and going at the pace we are going at it could take longer than that. but, you know, i wouldn't necessarily say another crisis around the corner unless that were in europe or japan. >> rose: did you see this

crisis coming? 2007 and 2008? >> you mean did i short housing? >> rose: whatever you might have done? yes, yes, yes, yes. get all of those out of your portfolio? >> i think it is fair to say that carmen reinhardt and i realized there would be a lot more crises overtime when we started our project in 2002, in 2003, but as the crisis began to unfold in 2007, we wrote a paper showing that looking at indicators like what was happening to housing prices, what was happening to the trade balance, and a number of other macro indicators, the u.s. was looking very, very vulnerable but it is very hard to just say, you know, i know it is going to happen this minute. the nature of these things, you are watching it unfold before you, little decisions which are seemingly innocuous make a big difference but i think the fact that something had to give with this bubble i think i had started writing about that in

the early 2000s. >> rose: so my question is, how will we know when the next crisis is coming? >> well, you know, certainly one indicator is looking at credit bubbles. there is a lot of evidence for that. and i think central banks need to go back to looking a lot harder at what has happened to credit throughout the cycle. it is an indicator that sort of got cast by the wayside with this focus on the money supply, and credit is very important and you have to keep an eye on that and, you know, that would certainly have been the number one thing, housing bubbles are another leading indicator, we are in no danger of that at the moment. but there are some indicators and, you know, nothing is perfect like you went back to paul krugman saying well i don't think we have too much debt and maybe he is right right now, but it certainly is the case that, you know, if you keep on the path we are on, eventually we will have too much debt. and it is hard to know exactly the timing.

>> rose: let me just go back to the plan in terms of the debate that is going on at the white house between the speaker and the president. the latest plan from the president would raise 1.2 trillion in taxes in the next decade. and it would cut one point tutu trillion in spending. doesn't the ratio have to be about like one for every $1 increase in revenue there has to be a $3 cut in spending? isn't that a more appropriate relationship? >> it certainly -- it certainly is the case that tax hikes hurt growth proportionately more in most cases, and, you know, there are exceptions, but i think i would be concern about having overly weighed toward tax hikes but there are other considers here. >> rose: but is one to one not the right relationship? >> there is no scientific number here. we are talking about a move along a bigger path that is going to get adjusted 20 times and we did have the bush tax

cuts, which was certainly the proximate reason beyond the financial crisis that the whole thing became so unstable. it is the entitlements that you need to look at. that's where the numbers really go crazy when you start getting out eight and ten years out. and when the numbers blow up. that is the thing where people are really concerned. and the general principle if you are facing that, you want to try to adjust to it gradually because politically it is very difficult, but i don't think there is some magic number here. >> rose: okay. >> both sides can legitimately hold out for whatever they want. >> rose: okay. but i am trying to get a fix on what is reasonable when the contours of within we ought to expect and how do you measure reasonableness? >> >> well, i really do think it is not so much the total revenue from tax cuts as the president needs and wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, and probably should be looking at the trawl

wealthy too, because that is just the first move towards raising it on everybody else. our spending on goods and services just isn't that much. i mean, cutting defense right now saying we are pulling out of afghanistan, we can cut defense, that seems awfully unlikely in a world where emerging markets are spending more and more on defense, where the issues are getting bigger. our government spending on goods and services just isn't that wig big. there isn't that much room to cut things. there are some. i think there is room to substitute, but it is really in the entitlements, medical care, and to much lesser extent social security, that is what you have to look at, and, you know, that is really -- if you get that straight, then the other things you can sort of tweak at the margin much more. and i would like to see more infrastructure spending. i would like to see spending on research and development. education. i mean, you have to get, you know, moving ahead with our country. you can't just stand still.

>> rose: could the president go to the country and say what you just said and find a willing within the economic community, the financial minute, the markets around the world, if he made that clearly a plan that we need to spend more and investment ideas to contribute to the economic growth and yet at the same time we have to match that with the kind of entitlement cuts that are clearly necessary because as at someone once said you go hunting where the ducks are? >> i think economists and markets would be thrilled to hear that, as long as it were tempered by saying we need to make sure we are not spending too much on the infrastructure, we are going to try to improve everything. i think people would be thrilled to hear it. the problem, is we have this paralysis that we start with at the beginning, this incredible political paralysis, you know, that we see it with gun control laws, everything, and i think it is very hard to make this kind of

rational approach. look at the simpson-bowles, great idea, and yet it got thrown out by both sides. their tax reform plan. >> rose: so simpson-bowles would have been a perfect starting point as you see it. >> we would be in a lot better -- we would be in a lot better place today if we had adopted that because it shows sensible compromises. i mean it is not the ideal theoretical plan where we would be talking about a consumption tax, a gas tax, energy tax, all kind of things, but within the political reality, it was a very bold and sensible plan that impressed economists across the political spectrum, but, you know, so far it hasn't really had much traction, even though of course the president says he supported it in the debates so did governor romney, but it is clear there is a lot of political opposition. >> rose: including they did not fully support it when it was first announced? >> that is absolutely true.

>> rose: as you look ahead to 2013, what will you be looking at? what economic indicators? >> >> obviously the unemployment rate. what else? >> well, i mean, i am fascinated to watch what is happening in europe, where right now, europe is quiet and all the action is in the united states, my european friends, policy friends are thrilled that they are not on tv in the united states, that everybody is worried about the fiscal cliff, but europe is still a mess, i mean governor, of the central bank governor mario grogy just kind of said let there be money and that provided liquidity and protection but it hasn't provided the fundamental change in europe. that still, you know, is simmering beneath the surface. i think in the united states, this immediate political shenanigans will get cleaned up, the fiscal cliff, but what i worry is that we won't see a big reform and that is really what i would like to see. we can look across to china also, there is a change in

leadership, their economy is stabilized but you talk about bubbles, there is a lot of signs of them in china, and you can say that, you know, it is nothing, they will still grow but there are plenty of concerns around the world. i am hopeful the united states will stabilize housing will continue to strengthenness, employment will stabilize, but i don't expect galloping growth. >> rose: thank you so much, it is a pleasure to have you on the program this evening. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: ken rogoff from harvard, back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: "promised land" is a new movie about gus van sant and follows the salesman from natural gas company that goes to a small town in pursuit of its natural resources. the film focuses on values, community and american identity, here is the trailer. >> you guys have closed more towns than the team behind you by triple digits, how do you do that. >> i grew up in a large farming

community, tractor pulls, cow chipping, my junior year they closed it down and that whole farming town fantasy but just shattered. i am telling you there is only one way to get it back. >> i am happy to announce we will bring natural gas to mckinley. >> it is right outside of the city, it looks like kentucky. >> two hours outside of any city looks like kentucky. >> you the owner of this place? >> no, then why are you doing all the work. >> you sign this lease it gives you the right to drill on your land. >> there is a whole lot of money out down there. >> that is true. >> this is no reason your town shouldn't have state of the art high school. >> what kind of money are you talking about? >> you could be a millionaire. >> a it would be too easy. >> did you say anything about a environmental presence here? >> , no let me guess, marketing -- >> 38 strippers/waitress but born to be a singer. >> i am a teacher. >> no,, no i was talking about me. >> hi, everybody. i am here because my farm is

gone, the land just turned brown and died. it happened to one of us, it can happen to u all of us. >> the town is going to put it to a vote in three weeks. what the hell happened? you were supposed to get in and get out. >> i know ever everything about your company. ready to go? yeah. this town, this life is dying. you all see it coming and you just don't get out of the way. >> we are not fighting for land, we are fighting for people. >> what you came to take from me -- >> you are a good man, steve. >> when a $9 billion company,

you know what we are capable of. do you? >> rose: joining me now is the director gus van sant and the movie cowriters and starts, john i can'i can't sin krakinski andt dayton, i am pleased to have them here to talk about this movie. tell me how it began. >> i had the idea about two years ago to do a movie about american identity .. and my dad grew up in a small steel mill town just outside of pittsburgh and the way he talked about his growing up, his dad had three jobs and he didn't have a lot, i an ignorant child i said your childhood was awful? >> no, it was fantastic, we had family, friends and community and the belief tomorrow would be a better day, i feel we have moved so far away from that, i want to tell the story about these communities being affected although the noise from the, so practicing became a perfect backdrop to the issue of these people going through a complicated decision and i brought that idea to matt and he was looking at the director at

the time and we were off and running. >> rose: and you donned your writing cap too? >> yeah, i was interested in directing it and it seemed like the exact type of thing i wanted to direct the first time that i tried, and so we started writing and we didn't, you know, you never know how these things are going to go, but we started to make a lot of progress really, really quickly and we were moonlighting because he was doing his show, the office and i was making a movie in la and he would show up at breakfast time on saturday mornings and we would write all day saturday and all day sunday. >> and then we would go off to our jobs and revive during the week we would make notes on scribble in the margins and then come back and meet on saturday morning and we would keep going, and it really started to come together quickly and it got really exciting, and i had forgotten that feeling, gus and i and kc affleck wrote a movie jerry ten or 12 years ago but we really improvised a lot of it, i don't think we had a whole screen play document, but -- so

this was the first time since goodwill hunting. >> #02: you lost me for a second here. you are looking for something to direct, he comes with an idea, and the two of you write it and you are set to direct it, so why is gus van sant here? >> well, basically,. >> rose: was he a trip or something? >> no. i realized, i realized that the, at the eleventh hour, literally the eleventh hour, it was december 15th of last year that i was not going to be able to direct it, because my schedule had been all kind of turned around by a movie running late and i had been away from my kids and i just -- i had a very hard phone call with john where i said, you know, because we are producing the thing and -- >> rose: what is a hard phone call. a. i just got over it yesterday. >> well, because -- not only was it i am not -- because we wanted the movie to come out this year, you know, topical at this and we needed to startness if that was going to happen and so not only

were we going into the holiday, i mean as john said to me on the phone, you know, it is december 15th, it is the evening of december 15th he said we can't even get our agent on the phone right now let alone a director, he said couldn't you have told me a month ago because we are producing this thing and i said, i didn't -- i really didn't know a month ago, and -- >> on top of all of that we had financing because of matt and i said also we lost our financing so i said, hey, i don't know what ben is drinking but we need to figure out what it is tonight. an so the phone rings in your house. >> it was december 15th. >> it was december 15th and the next morning, by the text morning, because i was going to florida with my wife and kid, for the holiday and to hide from john and i cash -- >> maybe a warrant for your arrest. >> yes. i just needed to get out of new york. i e-mailed gus the whole -- i said, look, this is this thing and here is what has been going on and i was going to direct it and really proud of it and we wrote it together and i think it is really good. and we were on the plane and he

e-mailed right back,, you know, send a script. >> rose: send a script. >> and so it was at that alex, alec baldwin on the moment when they are telling you to turn the phone off and i said, man, i am trying to forward the script and the flight attendant and i said this is not words with friends, this is important, this is my life. and i got it off to gus and shut the phone off and by the time we landed in florida two hours, two and a half hours later, gus had read it and committed to directing it. >> rose: what kind of guy is that? >> that's a friend. >> that's a friend. >> two and a half, maybe? >> i sort of heard about the project and thought you know what? it is crazy, i don't know if there were other projects too, but one was ben was going to star in, there was -- i was reading a project that matt was going to direct and i thought, well, if they ever run into trouble maybe they will call and ask me to direct. i don't know why i thought that. >> rose: no one would get in

trouble. >> you think maybe, yeah, something will happen and they will need my help, basically. i mean -- >> i will need a director. >> so, in fact, he did. >> rose: so delayed -- >> that's what -- e-mail -- >> rose: what did you like about it? >> the script? >> rose: yes. >> well i liked the setting, i was learning stuff because i never heard of hydraulic fracking before. >> rose: so explain to us what hydraulic fracking is. it is central to the story. >> it is freeing up natural gas from the shale which is, there is a huge shale deposit running from high owe to maine, it is a very, very large deposit. it is going way deep into the ground, two miles deep, and with water and chemicals loosening up the shale, fracture it, and it lets the gas go up and you capture it and try -- >> as the controversial new -- >> rose: i know.

but at the same time people believe it is a savior for america's economic -- >> that's why it was perfect for us because the stakes are so incredibly high so you want to put that pressure on which is the real pressure being put on these communities, high stakes poker that is a great place to set a story like this, who are we and where do we find ourselves today. >> rose: which is your story. >> exactly. >> what is the story? the story is matt's character, steve, comes into this small town and what we find out at the beginning of the movie is that steve's character is from a small town himself and actually had industry in that town, a caterpillar plant which shut down and just hollowed out the entire town financially and otherwise so he knows what these people are going through and how much they need financial help so he believes he is doing the right thing by going into these towns and offering them money to lease -- to drill on the land, and so then the town basically turns out to be a little more savvy and decide that that is not necessarily what they want,

and then the debate begins. and my character is named dustin, and environmentalist that comes in to help the town sort of fight against what matt's character is doing. >> rose: you have to be accurate about fracking. >> right. you want to make sure you get it right and not be vulnerable to the idea that this story is not -- >> yeah, so there was a lot of research, ian wrote a great series for "the new york times" called drilling down, an it was really phenomenal and so we used that and there are some books that have been written, a ton of articles and i mean, you know, no shortage of information. >> rose: so what do you have -- with all of that, what do you want? you want to entertain people, you want them to see interesting characters and relationships and big ideas. what do you want them to come away with? >> i think the best compliment matt and i had is it starts a conversation beyond even the issue of fracking or whatever issue is in the vernacular right now, it is to us it is the decision of communities gathering together and realizing

that they have a voice and a responsibility to sort of unite and engage in these issues that are happening each day and deciding for themselves whether or not they want it. the debate at the end of the movie is whether or not decision makers are manipulating situations to get people to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing the people themselves to side. >> rose: let me guess what the answer is. >> it is a pro community, pro democracy, you know, message if there is anything, but there is a vote at the end of the movie and we don't tell the zero outcome because that is not the issue, the issue is that the community has to engage, you know, to a man, to basically take control and responsibility for the things that are happening. >> rose: you said, you want this movie to be an exploration of the modern american identity. >> yes. absolutely. i hope i said that, i hope i said that sounded good. >> rose: i made it up. >> but i really do. i think that, you know, i don't know, maybe i have a wild theory that there is this idea of the

short game versus the long game and i feel like 50 years ago the idea of the long game was the priority and the idea of the short game was not necessarily something we were willing to delve into and i file that flipped a little bit nowadays so who we are, where we are and what we are willing to do to get to the next place is really interesting thing that i really wanted to explore. >> rose: and. >> the price of civilization. >> he talks about that. and really well, you know, he talks about the kind of the long-term issues versus short-term of how our politicians aren't incentivized because they score on the short-term and now we are butting up against a time where that will be a problem for us so we were looking at that book while we were doing it, so i think a lot of people having thinking amount these kind of things and this is just the kind of filming express of it. >> rose: i want to show a couple of scenes. one you saw the trailer but sheer a clip in which steve, matt, and sue, francis mcgorman try to bribe dustin, john, to stay out of their way. here it is. >> see, i know everything about

your company. i know what you do. i know how to beat it. you know how to beat -- by telling both sides of the story and speaking straight, steve? >> you have to understand he is way over his head on this one. he already signed more than enough leases to start development in this town. it is too late. i really wouldn't underestimate these people. >> i don't. >> i know what you think you are doing is right, and i really admire that commitment, but your presence here only confuses people. but we appreciate what you are doing and we would like to make a donation to your organization. your cooperation is value to us. >> is valuable to us. >> how was it getting back to you in writing, the sense of

being able to do this thing. >> i forgot. >> i really forgot how much -- because the great thing about goodwill hunting it really changed the way i got work on movies after that i was really invited into the creative fold of every director i worked with after that because they knew i was a writer so i felt like that part of my self was being met, you know, that itch was being scratched, because, you know, film is problem solving and that means a dialogue change here or structural change in here and you are a part of that decision process but i thought i, what it was like to start from, you know, the open laptop and that was just really fun. i just -- my wife said to me in filled of the whole thing, no matter what happens if you never make this movie, you know, i haven't seen you this happy, you know. at least you remembered how much fun it is to write. >> i assume what you want, most want to do is where you are a film maker and touch on all of those things. >> they all overlap. >> rose: not just, and a.

>> i feel all the jobs overlap and as long as you are not working with people who have precious -- have these egos, you know, you are really all there to help each other and your job is really to just give the director as many of your ideas as you, can and it is really the director who decides, it is a dictatorship, it is a benevolent dictatorship. >> rose: is that why you like? >> like it? >> yes, control is -- >> rose: they own it in the editing room, is why it is complete in part? >> or where the camera is pointed or how -- >> rose: it is what you can do when you pull it all together will, the music and everything else. >> there is nothing arbitrary in any shot. i have been talking to people about the question of who is the greatest, from a musical standpoint who is the greatest, and i asked this question, is ben, has he become a better director than he is actor with no qualms about he is a good actor? >> i don't think that the people have seen what he can really do as an actor.

i don't think he has had the chance to work with the great level of directors i have been working with for the last 15 years and i don't think, and i hope that he gets that now. >> rose: da. >> like he is like he is such a better actor. i think he is a team player, and so i think what could happen to him sometimes is if you didn't have a great director he wants to make sure the story is getting told, so he can fall into indicating a little bit, right? because he is just trying to help the story get told but when you trust the director like gus or himself the performances are fantastic because he knows exactly how the story is going to be told so he doesn't ever have to do anything that doesn't come completely naturally to him. >> rose: do you think an actor can get the best out of himself if he is directing and having written the script as well? >> i think it can happen. it is hard, though. it is really hard and i think you, ben did a great job. i thought it was fantastic. >> rose: i did too. did it save from you. >> not at all. >> did it surprise you?

>> not at all. >> it surprised me only inasmuch as i admired and respected him and knew how good he was it was even better. >> yes. it made me happy to watch it surprise other people. >> rose: yes. exactly. >> i mean, you know, i am obviously a huge believer, i bought the stock at its very lowest,. >> rose: you got in at the bottom. >> and when we were on amtrak together coming down here for auditions i was a big believer, so i am not surprised at all, i am immensely happy for him, he put up with a lot of stuff for a number of years and he is certainly out of actor jail now and going to get i think whatever part he wants now. >> rose: he actually, what is admirable about him and i am not sure if he would be thrilled or unhappy when i we are talking about him in this movie but happy in the respect you have for each other, but at the same time there is a sense of admiration about how he came back from the kind of criticism that he was getting that was overwhelming. >> it was really mean, it was

very hard, as his friend to watch it because people had such the wrong perception of who he really is, and so it is nice to not have to defend him anymore. >> rose: what concerned when when, what concerned you when you were putting together this story? what did you concern about that i have to get right or else we won't be where we need to be? >> interesting, i think what we were most concerned about at least in the beginning stages was being able to explain the idea of fracking and how it affects different people and sort of how that idea of eating your vegetables before the main entree and at least getting people to eat their vegetables during it in a way that you didn't realize you were doing it, so you could explain the thing that people would get it, without feeling like they were getting hit over the head with it. >> rose: here is a scene in which steve and dustin run into each other at a bar. take a look at this. >> do you like your job, steve? >> do you love what you do? >> yeah.

on days like this, yeah, i do. >> thanks, jeff. hey, get my friend a beer as well. one of those fancy imported ones. >> sure. maybe like a granola bar to go with it. >> you know what it takes, steve? >> huh? >> do you have what it takes? >> oh, to be you? yeah. absolutely. >> huh? >> you just might. >> and i will drink to that. >> hey, there she is. ready to go? >> yeah. all right. hey, thanks for the beer, that was really sweet. >> i hope you guys have a great night. thanks, jessica. >> i am really looking forward to tomorrow. >> should be fun. >> yeah. >> rose: if he says this movie is about a modern day american identity, what do you say it is about? >> i always think of it as a

kind of movie that i was used to seeing in the sixties where it is sort of a story about corporate shenanigans or corporate manipulation. >> rose: does it remind you of any of those movies? >> one is mirage, with gregory peck, i remember that one. >> rose: yeah. >> which the story occurred during the blackout of 65 or 64. which is a great movie. where the corporate heads are afraid that their scientist is going to give his formula that would allow free power to the whole world, and they want to control that, and the executive like lanes out the window to grab the formula which is already burning because gregory peck lit it on fire and falls to his death. >> rose: what is the conflict for steve? inner conflict? >> yeah. i mean, the second act is he starts to get frac'd, basically,

and through his kind of dealings with these people. he has this great, movies the protagonist with the self loathing and, you know, he comes from this place he considers himself a realist, he does know that the industry is necessary, in order to keep this way of life alive, he is alternately irate about the stubbornness of the people's stubbornness, his grandfather had and angry at himself for not having the same stubbornness somewhere in him, so will is a lot going on, there is that speech, the f you money speech, and. >> rose: did you write that or did john write that? >> he wrote most of that. right, you did. >> i have a lot of anger it sound like. >> rose: you wrote this in the apartment -- >> he was hanging out in a house in california at the time which was very convenient. we always went to his house, he wins by default with four little girls so we went over there and i don't know how we got worked

on between put tong little mermaid 17 times and lunch and bath time but we did. kids climbing all over bhoo is it easy to write with a writing partner? >> yeah. it is the too hard, i give up if it is me by myself. >> rose: really? >> different people have different voices as you well know. >> yeah, but what really -- i mean, john and i like looking back at the script i would be hard pressed to say who wrote what line, because the lines get constantly refined. you know, and it is like a process of improvisation and talking back and forth and trying to make each other laugh and it just, you know, we would spend a day and suddenly during the week i would be looking at what we had done and say this is really good like i am really happy with this. and then we would continue grinding and grinding and grinding and the script really, i mean, i don't know how many drafts we did, we did, you know, 20, 25 drafts, but we just kept kind of grinding, grinding away on it. >> there are two things i want you to see, i want you to see

this and we have a memory here. this is when matt is on the show in december 2011, and making a comparison between you and another actor, here it is. >> george is, it is incredible actually what he has done with, you know, kind of coming from er, from being the handsome guy on er and he was just smart enough to know if i just get my foot in the door i can, you know, if you look at where his career is now versus where it was 15 years ago, it is remarkable what he has done but it is because he is unbelievably talented and he so-so much more talented than people even realize. >> i just started working with john and it was very easy and fluid and it reminded me of writing with ben. it was very fast and easy and he -- john krakinski is like george in the sense that right now he is known for being on this tv show, the office, and he is great on that, and but the perception of him, if -- i would

bet my house on the perception of him in ten years being very different than it is right now. >> rose: one more clip here. this is from a movie you made called goodwill hunting. durm that? >> i remember that. >> rose: do you remember it well? >> 15 years ago. >> 15 years ago. >> rose: there is a scene. take a look at this. 15 years ago in which matt defends he friend ben affleck who was flirting with minnie driver. here it is. .. >> you are a first year grad student and just got writing, and, read, and wait and you will be talking about how the economy of virginia and, entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740 and last until next year and be in here regurgitating talkn't a the pre, prerevolutionary utopia and to the effects of military mobilization. >> as a matter of fact, i won't, because wood drastically understood estimates the impact of social -- >> drastically understood

estimates it built upon wealth, especially inherited wealth, he got that from vegas, page 98, right? >> yeah, i read that too. are you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us or have any thoughts of your own on this matter? or is that your thing you come into a bar and read some obscure passage and pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? >> see, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you will start doing some thinking on your own and come up with the fact there are two certainties in life, one, don't do that, and, two, you dropped 150 grand on an education you could have got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library. >> yeah, but ily -- yeah but i will have a degree and you will be serving my kid fries at a drive through on our way to a skiing trip. >> that may be. but at least i won't be unoriginal. >> rose: weird. >> yeah. how many years? taken years ago. >> 15 years ago, yeah. >> 15 years ago.

but it feels like, you know, yesterday and then on one hahn and 50 years ago on the other, you know,. >> rose: and so what is the partnership here? what is the thing that -- is there a fourth? >> yeah, we did jerry, which was the tiny film, gus took out a mortgage on his us to fund that and i did a cameo in finding forester. and then this one. >> rose: so what is he it when an actor find a director or a director find an actor to somehow the combination, the collaboration is better than two plus two? >> i am not sure. i think the success of goodwill hunting elevated everyone to this great place. we always remember it. so it is easy to come back to. >> rose: but is that one of those films, i mean i was listening to the dialogue which was sort of had that kind of, you know, rapid fire smart talk. is that what propelled it? i mean you had that kind of script? everything rhode on

that? >> i think it was .. honed dialogue we had worked on for years and years. i mean, from the time we started writing until the time we came out, it was five years. so we worked a lot, i mean. >> and "promised land" had the same -- >> i mean it was very similar, like -- >> the standard way of thinking is that you do scenes that don't go more than two pages, it is about a page a minute so a script is 120 pages, two hours. but you generally don't want to do scenes that are longer than two pages, and "promised land" is built. >> you don't want to do any longer than two. >> two pages. >> generally a scene last twos pages, s so good will hunting as well with this there are a lot of five, six page scenes just because, i don't know, maybe, you know, i overwrite things or, you know, but so i think one of the reasons the dialogue often goes really fast is that is me going like let's go, let's go, let's go. this scene is four pages too

long. >> rose: yeah. >> but also it is a reflection of the intelligence of the characters and it is fun to watch characters who are moving, whose mind are going quickly. >> rose: yes, it is, the it is stunt writing from the best people, you see it in the best movies somehow. like sorkin have the wildfire delivery that make the difference. when you guys finish that, did you know, have any idea what impact it would have? >> when we finished goodwill hunting? >> rose: yeah did you know it was so good like manager good is going to come out of it? >> we didn't have much to compare it to. we knew we like it and we felt each scene went exactly the way we wanted it to go. that's the way we felt on this. at the end of each day, gus would upload the footage to a web site we could get on our computers and look at what we shot and say that is exactly what we intended or in a lot of cases it was even better. i was lucky because i had prepared this as a director, so

this gave me the chance to, you know, and obviously i never told gus what i was going to do a shot here, but i got to see what gus did and all the choices he made were exactly like i was going to make them and many cases where he did things that were different than were just brilliant that i hadn't thought of. >> rose: congratulations. >> thank you. >> rose: great to have you here. >> thank you so much, good to be here. >> hope to see you again. >> rose: "promised land" opens in select cities on friday, december 28th, and then nationwide on friday, january 4th. the day before my birthday. much success. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org explore new worlds and new ideas

through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. dr. joel fuhrman is a board-certified physician whose groundbreaking work has been acclaimed as a medical breakthrough for weight loss, disease reversal and prevention. the american diet today has 62% of calories from processed foods. how many of you would like a promise that you don't have to have a heart attack when you get older?